4 ms·
Agreed. The other serious problem with OpenDoc, from a business standpoint, is that it could have alienated big software vendors such as Microsoft and Adobe fr
by linguae 6y ago
Agreed. The other serious problem with OpenDoc, from a business standpoint, is that it could have alienated big software vendors such as Microsoft and Adobe from Mac OS at a time when Apple needed Microsoft's and Adobe's commitment to providing Mac versions of Office and Photoshop/Illustrator. Indeed, they even balked at porting their applications to the OpenStep/Yellow Box/Cocoa API, which forced Apple to change its Rhapsody strategy and announce Carbon in 1998. But OpenDoc's component-based software model would have been an even greater disruption: Microsoft and Adobe might have balked at supporting a platform that would make it easier for upstarts to compete by selling components.
There's a nice Hacker News comment that is a repost of another comment that describes why OpenDoc didn't fit with Apple's business model and how the Linux desktop missed a big opportunity by not pursuing an OpenDoc-style approach to the Linux desktop in the mid-1990s when KDE was in its infancy:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13573373 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13573373
- bradneuberg 6y agoKDE attempted to bring OpenDoc-lite style components into itself ~2000 with KParts, while Gnome attempted the same with the CORBA based Bonobo system at the same time. Neither was successful - the true path to inter operating compound documents was the Web with HTML and JavaScript ultimately, but that didn’t start coming into its own until about 10 years later.
- pjmlp 6y agoAt least the IPC idea survived with D-BUS, and they could actually still do it, but the elephant in the room is that desktop fragmentation in Linux world is a big obstacle.